Illegal bribe or legitimate ‘gratuity’: How a $13,000 payment to an Indiana mayor could alter political corruption cases in Chicago
It was Christmastime 2013, and Portage Mayor James Snyder was in trouble.
His mortgage business had tanked, the IRS was after him for a significant tax debt, and on top of that he had holiday spending to account for. His $62,000 salary as mayor of the small working-class town just wasn’t cutting it.
So Snyder showed up unannounced to Great Lakes Peterbilt, the local truck dealership he’d helped to win two lucrative city contracts.
“I need money. That’s what I’m here for,” the mayor told the owners. Days later, they cut Snyder a check for $13,000, saying it was for “consulting” that was never fully performed.
As alleged bribes go, it wasn’t exactly the crime of the century. And his lawyers argued it wasn’t a bribe at all, but a legal gratuity, a thank-you gesture to Snyder for shepherding the city contracts to their firm.
A decade later, that agreement in a small office in northwest Indiana is the focus of a legal battle that has wound its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has decided to take up Snyder’s appeal and render a decision that could change the face of public corruption prosecutions across the country, including Chicago.
At issue in Snyder’s case is a nuance in the federal bribery statute that makes it illegal to “corruptly” offer something of value to reward a public official for an official act.
Chicago-area defense attorneys have long complained that relatively vague language has been exploited by federal prosecutors to criminalize a wide range of normal political give-and-take, be it a steak dinner or the hiring of a political crony, even when there was no quid pro quo agreement.
